Here are Dr Roberts' words:
“Washington plans to preemptively nuclear strike not only in Russia, but also, possibly, in China. There are quite a few in Washington who support the idea of nuclear war, making statements like “What good are nuclear weapons if you don’t use them”... Meanwhile, the use of only one percent of the nuclear weapons at the disposal of the United States and Russia will lead to the destruction of at least two billion people. And if half of the nuclear arsenal of our two countries is blown up, then life on planet Earth will cease to exist.”
Dr. Roberts continued:
“I've been talking about this for several years. I warned that the Bush administration's policies had changed the American military doctrine such that the role of nuclear weapons is no longer seen as a response to aggression against the United States. Now it has received the status of a means for a preventive disarming nuclear strike. Our current doctrine is that we can go to nuclear war against anyone we don't like, or who disagrees with us, or who (we think) might be preparing to go to war with us. This doctrine also applies to those countries that do not possess nuclear weapons.”
Why might Russia become a target for American nuclear missiles? Roberts answers this question as follows:
“Russia is a huge country with enormous resources. These resources are enough to prevent Washington from maintaining world dominance. For this reason, Russia has always been a target for nuclear war doctrine. How do they do this? The United States is currently deploying bases for its missile defense system near Russian borders. During Reagan's time it was called " Star Wars" These missiles are designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. Therefore, if we strike Russia and turn it into a desert, and Russia presses its nuclear button, launching an intercontinental ballistic missile towards the United States in response, then this missile will be shot down by the missile defense system and nothing will happen to America. The prevailing idea in Washington now is that the United States can win a nuclear war because it has missile defense."
So, is America safe? Roberts believes that this is completely wrong:
“Even if American cities manage to escape retribution, Americans will still die from radiation and a “nuclear winter” ... the climate will change dramatically, and the temperature will rapidly drop every day for three years. It is clear that in such conditions nothing will grow on earth. And this is in addition to what radiation does to people. This is a very serious situation that the United States really has plans for a nuclear war and would like to wipe Russia and China off the face of the Earth, all so that no one stops Washington from imposing its will on the world. This is blatantly evil."
Why isn't this being talked about in the American national media? To this, Dr. Roberts, who once served as editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, says:
“The New York Times and the Washington Post are involved in this. They fully and completely support these wars. The explanation is simple - they are bought or intimidated, because if you say anything negative about Washington, you will be declared anti-American. This is the essence of the absurd.”
What if Russia and China strike first? Do you not admit this possibility? Dr Roberts responds:
“What I am telling you is public information. This is not just my opinion. It's open and anyone can read it. Both the Russians and the Chinese are aware of all this... For Washington, this is a very dangerous doctrine, as is its implementation through the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland... There are already American bases in Poland and there will be more of them. The Polish government signed humanity's death warrant... They gave Washington the confidence that they could strike Russia without any consequences for themselves... Of course, these systems will never work the way the people who created them intended. There will be no winners in this war. This is just ignorance. However, belief in the possibility of victory makes the prospect of nuclear war increasingly likely.”
All rights belong to Alexander Shulman(c) 2017© 2017 by Alexander Shulman. All rights reserved
Use of the material without the written permission of the author is prohibited.
Any violations are punishable by copyright law in force in Israel.
Alexander Shulman
Right to a preemptive strike
These days, Israel is celebrating the 44th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. The anniversary of the Yom Kippur War has once again continued the long-standing public debate about whether the war could have been prevented or won with minimal losses. This topic remains relevant today, when wars rage along Israel’s borders in neighboring Arab countries oh, and hostile Iran is closer than ever to possessing nuclear weapons.
The Chief of the IDF General Staff, Lieutenant General G. Eizenkot, in his recent report at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, warns: “War can break out at any moment, both on one and several fronts. And we must be prepared for this.”
Once again, Israel is faced with the problem of a preemptive strike - whether the Jewish state, in order to protect its independence and its own citizens, can be the first to strike an enemy who has openly declared war as its goal.
Speaking at a meeting dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated in light of the Iranian threat: “You should never underestimate the enemy. An international response to a preemptive strike from our country is preferable to the bloody price we will pay if We won’t do this." He also noted that “the decision to launch a preventive strike is one of the most difficult decisions, which the government must accept, because you can never prove what would have happened if it had not been inflicted."
Throughout the history of the Jewish State, more than once circumstances have developed in such a way that the government was faced with a difficult dilemma - to deliver or not to launch a preventive strike on the enemy. The adoption of such a decision in 1967 ensured a brilliant victory in the Six-Day War; its rejection led to the difficult and bloody Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Each time, before making a decision on a preventive strike, Israel found itself in complete international isolation - friendly countries abandoned their previously assumed obligations and, despite direct threats to the existence of the Jewish state, demanded from it restraint and, in fact, capitulation to the enemy.
The Six-Day War of 1967 was preceded by a dramatic series of events, as a result of which Israel found itself alone in the face of the enemy, despite previously given international guarantees of its security.
After withdrawing from Sinai in March 1957, Israel received from the US administration a firm and public recognition of its right to self-defense and guarantees to prevent Egyptian intentions to establish a blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Israel's right to freedom of navigation was confirmed by the UN, which stationed its troops in the Sharm al-Sheikh area and on the Egyptian coast of the Strait of Tiran.
However, on May 16, 1967, Egypt ordered UN forces to leave the Sinai Peninsula. UN Secretary-General U Thant, fearing pressure from the Arabs, immediately yielded to Egyptian demands and withdrew UN forces from the Gaza Strip, after which the Egyptian army reached the Israeli border.
A real threat to Israel's existence has arisen, but the US government has made it clear that it is not going to come to Israel's aid and fulfill previously given guarantees. The United States refused to supply combat aircraft to Israel.
Realizing the weakness of the American reaction, Egypt continued to build up its troops in the Sinai. Arab leaders, meanwhile, whipped up militaristic sentiments. Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad said that the Syrian army "keeps its finger on the trigger and is looking forward to the start of military action."
May 21, 1967 Israeli Prime Minister L. Eshkol told cabinet members: “I believe the Egyptians are planning to stop the shipping of Israeli ships in the port of Eilat or bomb nuclear reactor in Dimona. A large-scale military operation will follow these actions."
Conciliatory steps by Israeli leaders aimed at appeasing the Arabs had the opposite effect: on May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran for Israeli shipping. The USSR also made threats against Israel. It became clear that the international security guarantees Israel had previously received from the United States, Great Britain and France were in fact invalid.
Six Day War 1967. Israel attacks
The situation along Israel's borders continued to escalate, and Israel's strategic position continued to deteriorate. The UN has stopped any attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict. Due to the ongoing blockade, Israel began to experience severe shortages of oil and food. Mobilization was announced in Sudan, Iraq and Kuwait; Syrian troops were ready to invade Galilee.
When asked about the fate of the Israelis in the event of a possible Arab victory in the upcoming war, PLO head Ahmad Shuqairi replied: “Those who survive will remain in Palestine, but according to my estimates, none of them will survive.”
The President of Iraq was no less categorical: “The existence of Israel is a mistake that must be corrected. This is an opportunity to wash away the shame that has been on us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. And we, if so, Allah willing, we will meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa."
May 30, 1967 King Hussein of Jordan signed a bilateral military pact with Egypt. Now Israel faces a war on three fronts. The number and equipment of the Arab armies was several times greater than Israeli army, and this at the very moment when Israel’s international isolation was almost complete.
The existence of the entire nation of Israel is in question. In Israel, there are calls to rely only on its own forces; one cannot count on military support from other countries.
“We will fight against Egypt and Syria on our own,” Chief of the General Staff I. Rabin told the Prime Minister. As an Israeli response to the current situation, Rabin proposed striking Egypt. Delay will cost Israel tens of thousands of dead.
The fateful meeting of the Israeli cabinet began on Sunday, June 4 at 8:15 am. The head of military intelligence, A. Yariv, said that from the data obtained by military intelligence, it is irrefutable that the Egyptian army is moving from a defensive deployment to an attacking one with the clear intention of occupying Eilat. After seven hours of discussion, the government voted unanimously to order troops to "begin a military operation to liberate Israel from the siege and prevent the impending attack by the combined forces of Arab countries."
At 8:00 am next day Israeli planes bombed Egyptian airfields. The war began and was won brilliantly by Israel in less than a week.
Events developed differently in 1973, on the eve of the Yom Kippur War. Six months before the start of the war, Israeli military intelligence AMAN was well aware of Egyptian and Syrian plans to attack Israel. However, the chief of military intelligence, General Eli Zeira, convinced the country's leadership that such an attack was unlikely until Egypt received MiG-23 aircraft and Scud missiles from the USSR.
Earlier, in May 1973. Israel had already mobilized reservists in response to clear intelligence warnings about the possibility of an Arab war. However, each time the Arab attack was postponed, which significantly weakened the vigilance of the Israelis. Egyptian President Sadat seemed to be balancing on the brink of war; his frequent threats to Israel were simply ignored.
At the same time, intelligence about an impending attack on Israel grew like a snowball.
On September 25, King Hussein of Jordan visited Israel secretly. He was returning from a meeting with the leadership of Egypt and Syria and considered it his duty to warn the Israeli leadership about the war on the threshold.
On October 1, 1973, AMAN's analytical officer, Lieutenant Binyamin Siman-Tov, presented an extremely grim assessment of the situation. He claimed that Egyptian troops were fully prepared to cross the Suez Canal and there were literally hours left before the start of the war.
Yom Kippur War 1973. Israeli tank crews before going into battle on the Golan Heights
On October 4-5, Mossad chief Zvi Zamir reported on new signs of an impending war: the evacuation of the families of Soviet officers from Egypt and Syria began, and a high concentration of Egyptian and Syrian tanks and anti-aircraft missile systems was noted in the immediate vicinity of the dividing lines with Israel.
The issue of launching a pre-emptive strike against the enemy was discussed at a meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir. The military insisted on a preemptive strike, but Prime Minister Golda Meir relied more on guarantees received from the United States.
Earlier, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger strictly demanded that Israel not launch a preemptive strike. Golda Meir argued that Israel would need American help, and for this it was extremely important that the Jewish state could not be blamed for starting the war. "If we strike first, we won't get help from anyone," Golda said.
At 10:15 a.m. on October 6, Golda Meir met with U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Keating to inform the United States that Israel had no intention of starting a preventive war and asked the United States to make efforts to prevent war.
For refusing a preventive strike, Israel had to pay a high price - at 14:00 on October 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy Day of Judgment, Israel was attacked on all fronts by the armies of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia , Morocco, Jordan, Cuba, North Korea. The aggression against the Jewish state was led by the USSR - the Arab armies were controlled by thousands of Soviet officers and were armed with tens of billions of dollars worth of Soviet weapons.
In the vastness from Sinai to the Golan, the largest event in world history unfolded. tank battle, in which more than 1 million 500 thousand military personnel and 7 thousand tanks fought on both sides.
Yom Kippur War 1973. Israeli troops cross the Suez Canal
It would seem that the aggressor had everything on the side: the factor of surprise, colossal superiority in tanks, aircraft and manpower. Out of hatred for Israel, Islamic fanaticism merged with Soviet anti-Semitism.
However, the enemy did not take into account the tenacity and professionalism of the Israeli soldier, who managed not only to stop the rushing to Israeli cities the enemy armada, but also inflict a crushing defeat on the enemy. For the victory, Israel had to pay the highest price - about 2.5 thousand Israelis died in the battles of this bloody war.
Today, Israel once again faces fateful decisions. Iran is rapidly approaching the creation of its own nuclear weapons. Western countries led by the United States, despite Israeli warnings about the growing Iranian nuclear danger, signed a deal with the Islamic regime in Tehran and lifted previously imposed sanctions.
Benjamin Netanyahu warns: “It would be a historical mistake to make allowances for Iran and weaken the sanctions regime even before this country has dismantled its nuclear potential. Iran is now on its toes and it is necessary to strengthen the sanctions regime with all its might to achieve the desired result.”
Netanyahu added that he calls on the international community to do this, and he hopes that the international community will do this.
In the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel once again finds itself in international isolation, as it was in 1967 and 1973. Once again, the Israeli leadership is faced with the dilemma of preventive war...
READING
PREVENTIVE STRIKE
Tatiana cooked borscht. It was almost ready, and the most delicious smells came from the large yellow pan with flowers. Despite her youth, Tanya was an excellent housewife and an excellent cook.
- Smells delicious! And I'm so hungry! Where is Kostyan? Does he play with toys?
The husband, Sergei, came in and looked into the kitchen and smiled broadly. His smile was always so charming that it was impossible not to smile back. And Tanya blossomed, walked up to her husband with a ladle in her hands, and kissed him.
A playful Kostya came running from the nursery, reached out to his father, and he grabbed his son, slowed him down, and went with him to the toys. Tanya listened to their fuss in the children's room and smiled happily.
Sergei returned to the kitchen, affectionately hugged his wife, and then sat down at the table, became serious and said slowly:
- Tanya, just don’t get upset, okay? It looks like we’ll have to take my mother in with us again... Something about her and Ritulya’s relationship is not very good... Well, you know, my sister has a complex character... Today my mother called and cried...
The husband looked embarrassed. Tanya was silent, and he stood up and, trampling around kitchen table, said:
- I’ll... I’ll go put the car in the garage. I’ll take Kostya with me for a walk. And we'll come for lunch.
Sergei left, and Tanya slowly sat down on a chair. She looked out the window with unseeing eyes. Will the mother-in-law really move in with them again? Will this endless torture begin again?
The character of Irina Lvovna, like her eldest daughter Margarita, was, to put it mildly, complex. But at first Tanya had no idea about this. The acquaintance with the husband's parents was short: the newlyweds stayed with them for several days and left for the place of Sergei's new assignment, a professional military man.
These few days were not the most pleasant in Tanya's life. Especially understand family relationships She didn’t make it to the Petrovs. I noticed, however, that the decisive voice in all matters belonged to Irina Lvovna. The father-in-law, a retired colonel, was an easy-going person; he rarely addressed Tanya, but kindly. As for the mother-in-law, she behaved dryly, restrainedly, and with all her appearance made it clear what kindness their family was showing in accepting their young daughter-in-law.
Tanya somehow immediately felt that Irina Lvovna considered her not a match for her son - apparently, this was not the kind of daughter-in-law she was waiting for. Yes, Tanya herself knew that she had neither special beauty nor a rich dowry. Her parents died early, and she was the only one who managed to finish college. She worked as a school teacher, teaching Russian language and literature. She loved her profession, but the salary she received was pitiful. Once at the table I tried to tell a funny incident from school life, but Irina Lvovna, without listening to the end, switched the conversation to another topic. And then she said quietly: “If you have no mind, go to hell.” Tatyana blushed, but remained silent.
She was generally flexible in character. And the mother-in-law is right: in fact, she is not a match for Seryozha. Why did he only love her? Short, thin, light eyebrows, light hair - a gray mouse. And her Seryozha is tall, handsome, fit. And Sergei’s family is wealthy, but she, Tanya, has no money, no apartment, a room in a communal apartment. Irina Lvovna said:
- Well, Kazan orphan, we accept you into the family. Since Sergei married you...
And Tanya smiled: she really is an orphan from Kazan. No, she was not downtrodden and timid. She could take care of herself. But here it was a completely different case: she loved Seryozha so much that she was ready to love everything connected with him: his family, his home, his friends. Well, it’s okay, when Irina Lvovna understands how much her daughter-in-law loves her husband, how she cares for him, then she herself will change her attitude towards her.
The Petrovs’ eldest daughter, Margarita, a homely Ritulya, did not pay attention to Tanya and did not start conversations with her. She was as tall and thin as Irina Lvovna, and her character was like her mother. Sergei, with his powerful figure and easy-going character, took after his father. An old grandmother, my father’s mother, also lived with the Petrovs.
So the grandmother treated Tanya with love, and Tatyana spent most of the time in her small room. The old woman taught her to knit, told her stories from the childhood of Seryozha and Rituli, and Tanya listened to these stories with joy.
She was unpleasantly struck by her careless attitude towards Irina Lvovna’s grandmother. In front of her household, she behaved politely with her husband’s mother, but when the men were not at home, she shouted at her:
- Well, step aside so you can go to the bathroom! You need to go to work, but you still sit at home all day long! Go to your room and don't get in your way!
- Go away!
Tanya went out into the corridor, but Irina Lvovna was already in the kitchen, and her grandmother was quietly walking along the corridor and looked completely calm and happy with everything. Tanya thought she had misheard.
Soon the young couple left, and the next time Tanya saw her mother-in-law was only a year later. During this year, significant changes took place in the family of the elder Petrovs: Ritulya began to live separately, her old grandmother died, and after her her father-in-law suddenly died of a heart attack. That’s when Irina Lvovna came to her son and daughter-in-law.
After the death of her husband, she lost a lot, but she still behaved arrogantly, spoke in a bossy voice and constantly found fault with her daughter-in-law. It seemed that she was only busy finding a reason for conflict. Tanya was expecting a child and was sitting at home. The pregnancy was difficult and I suffered from toxicosis. It was all the more difficult to bear my mother-in-law’s nagging.
Irina Lvovna saved them for the evening, and when Sergei came home from work, she brought down heavy artillery on him: his idle wife sleeps during the day, but could have free time and do some repairs, at least cosmetic ones. Or: a young wife is unfriendly with her mother-in-law, disrespectful. When asked by her son what exactly the inhospitability is expressed in, the mother-in-law pursed her lips: he could have guessed it himself!
Tanya cooked for herself, washed the dishes, including for her mother-in-law, did laundry for three and cleaned the apartment. I was waiting for Irina Lvovna to finally appreciate the delicious borscht, or the snow-white linen after washing, or the cleanliness and comfort in the apartment, but she just couldn’t please.
Tanya didn’t know what exactly her mother-in-law said to her husband, but she was amazed when Seryozha once told her with pain:
- Tanya, please be more kind to your mother, don’t offend her. It’s already hard for her after her dad’s death.
Seryozha interrupted and said more forcefully:
- That's it, Tanya! Let's not argue! I understand: you are in a position, you are nervous... But I ask you not to offend my mother!
And after this conversation, Tanya somehow became very upset. When her husband left for work, she cried for a long time, locking herself in the bathroom and turning on the water so that Irina Lvovna would not hear.
And then, while going to the store to do some shopping, Tanya forgot her wallet. I had to go back. Opening front door, she froze on the threshold, hearing the loud, jubilant voice of her mother-in-law, who was talking on the phone:
- Yes, Ritulya! Absolutely correct! I immediately showed her who was the boss of the house! The most important thing is to strike preemptively! I am, after all, the colonel’s wife! You need to attack so that you don’t have to defend... Yes, yes! Preemptive strike! I did it, I did it! Well, I came up with it... Yes... I made it up... Seryozha? Of course I believed it! What, he won’t believe his own mother, or what?! Yes, of course, she did the right thing... Otherwise, just give her free rein, just relax... She’ll quickly sit on your neck! I'm an experienced sparrow, I know how older people are treated if they can't stand up for themselves. Exactly!
Tanya felt weak and felt her knees buckle. She quietly went out into the street, holding on to the railing so as not to fall, because the tears were flowing and she could hardly distinguish the steps.
She reached a deserted square, which was three steps from the house, and sat down on a bench. She cried and remembered how she dreamed of a big, friendly and happy family, dreamed that she, an orphan, would have relatives. And she will love them, because they are Seryozha’s relatives. And maybe she will even call her mother-in-law mom, and she will affectionately say “daughter” to her... Tanya began to cry almost out loud, unable to contain herself. And the baby in the stomach also became agitated and began to kick. She fell silent, afraid for the little one, stopped crying, breathed deeply and, stroking her stomach, said:
- Everything is fine, Kostya, everything is fine... You see, our grandmother decided to deal us a preemptive strike... This is to protect herself, that is, herself... And you and I didn’t even think of offending her, right? She just thought wrongly... That's how it happened... If she knew that we didn't want to offend her, she wouldn't have done that. Nothing. Everything will work out. You and I will forgive her, right? Calm down, my little one, calm down, please! You can't worry there. Everything is fine! I love you very much. Well, have you calmed down?..
Tanya raised her eyes to the gray autumn sky and said quietly:
– Holy Mother of God, protect my son and me! You know that I have no parents... Mother, protect us Yourself! Please protect us...
Then she got up and slowly walked into the store. The child calmed down, and Tanya herself felt light and peaceful in her soul.
And a couple of days later, Irina Lvovna announced that she was leaving them. Ritulya called and told her what she had been hiding for several months: she would soon become a mother and would need help around the house.
Irina Lvovna perked up and began to fuss, getting ready:
- My daughter is waiting, she needs me. You can’t refuse to help your own daughter. You're lucky: Sergei married you, and Ritula got caught by some bastard - he got the child pregnant and remember what his name was!
And Seryozha and Tanya were left alone, and then Kostya was born.
My son is now three years old. Tanya remembered how friendly they lived, how her son grew up and how good it was for the three of them. Has their end come? happy life? Tanya sat in the kitchen, staring out the window and forgetting about time. Hearing the cheerful ringing voice of her son and the bass voice of her husband coming from the entrance, she perked up and began to set the table.
A couple of days later, Seryozha went to Ritula to pick up his mother. Irina Lvovna arrived silent, quiet, and thinner. She greeted Tanya quietly and went into the room prepared for her. Kostya was huddled and shy of his grandmother. But the grandmother was silent and almost did not leave her room.
“Well,” thought Tanya, “let it be so.”
She no longer tried to improve relations with her mother-in-law, turning to her only when necessary. The old desire to find loved one disappeared, and Tanya behaved calmly, evenly, but aloof. I remembered how she tried to please her mother-in-law three years ago, how she waited for her kind words, affection, how my heart ached, meeting coldness and hostility - and I understood that this was all in the past.
Seryozha answered the question about Ritul briefly:
– Tanya, you know, my sister raised her daughter alone. Her mother was also a nanny, a cook, and a cleaning lady. And now Margarita is getting married. I sent my daughter to kindergarten; she no longer needs her mother. She began to interfere... And her future husband has his own mother. So...
Tanya remained silent. I just thought: “Irina Lvovna probably became attached to her granddaughter, it was probably difficult for her to part with the child.” I felt a little sorry for my mother-in-law.
And she changed a lot: she no longer had a militant attitude, she became quieter, softer in her manner. Yes, and physically I lost a lot. Apparently, old age humbles people.
Tanya noticed that her mother-in-law liked to watch Kostya play. Sometimes he’ll bring him a rolling ball, or he’ll help him build a house out of cubes. And the grandson began to treat his grandmother no longer so timidly, although he still avoided, did not caress, did not ask to be held in her arms.
One evening, when Seryozha was on duty, Kostya became very capricious. Tanya touched the child’s forehead – it was hot. I set the thermometer and saw with horror that the mercury had risen to forty. Tanya rushed around the room. I grabbed the phone and called " ambulance" The car didn't move for a long time. And Tatyana ran out into the street: what if they took a long time to find the entrance...
When she returned with the doctor, she almost gasped: Kostya was sitting on Irina Lvovna’s lap. He snuggled trustingly and didn’t even cry. And his mother-in-law sang something to him about a gray cat, and Tanya was amazed: it turns out that her voice, always creaky, can be so affectionate...
Kostya was diagnosed with measles. They allowed me to stay at home and prescribed treatment. And the mother-in-law, to Tanya’s surprise, did not leave her grandson’s side. She leafed through a book with pictures, sang, very out of tune, but with feeling, about a gray cat, and told some fairy tales. She still treated Tanya dryly, only when necessary, but when talking with her grandson, her voice became completely different. She affectionately called the baby Kostyushka and crawled on the carpet, handing him either cubes or a pyramid. Tanya even somehow caught herself standing at the stove and singing a song about that little gray cat. She fell silent in fear: what if her mother-in-law heard and decided that she was being imitated...
And five days later, when the grandson was already recovering, Irina Lvovna herself fell ill. She didn’t get out of bed in the morning, and when Tanya looked into her room, she saw her mother-in-law’s burning face and red eyes. I called an ambulance. The doctor said:
- Well, grandma, it looks like you caught measles from your grandson. The sclera of the eyes are red - the so-called rabbit look, the face is swollen. On the third or fourth day, a rash will appear.
- K-roller! – Kostya, hiding at the door, rejoiced: he had recently learned to pronounce “r”.
– Adults suffer from measles more severely than children, there are complications – bronchitis, pneumonia... What about the hospital? No? Well... There is no specific treatment for measles. You can only reduce the general symptoms of intoxication of the body and control body temperature.
Tanya was spinning like a squirrel in a wheel: Kostya, who had recovered, needed care. He grew up kind and a calm child, but during his illness he got used to attention, to the fulfillment of all desires on the fly, and he really liked it... Tanya also looked after her mother-in-law: she gave medicine by the hour, made fruit drinks - either cranberry or lingonberry, prepared lighter food for the sick woman, but more nutritious, she helped me get to the toilet.
But Irina Lvovna was not getting better. The temperature dropped for half an hour, and then the mercury quickly rose again to forty. The lips became feathered, the facial features became sharper. Tanya decided to herself that if the patient’s condition did not improve in the near future, then she would need to be sent to the hospital.
In the evening, the temperature rose again, and Irina Lvovna asked Tanya to dial Rituli’s phone number:
– I want to say goodbye to my daughter and granddaughter.
– Irina Lvovna, of course, I will dial you their number, but not to say goodbye, but just to talk. Why say goodbye?
- I'm dying.
– Irina Lvovna, you will definitely get better, and everything will be fine. You'll see! Just a couple more days and you will be on the mend!
The mother-in-law looked at Tanya carefully:
- Do you really want me to get better?
Tanya was confused by these words and stopped short. I started rearranging fruit drinks and medicines on the chair, and before my eyes: my mother-in-law was holding sick Kostya close to her, she was singing to him about a gray cat, she was crawling after him on the carpet in search of a pyramid. Tanya sat down by her mother-in-law’s bed, took her hot palm in her hands and said from the bottom of her heart:
- Of course I want! Really want to! And you will definitely get better! Christmas is coming... Let's celebrate the holiday together! And Seryozha will bring a Christmas tree, and we will have gifts, and a pie...
- Pie... gifts... Forgive me, Tanya! Please forgive me! Can you?
- For what, Irina Lvovna?
- You know...
Tanya paused and answered simply:
- I know. For a preventive strike.
The mother-in-law squeezed Tanya’s palms with hot and slightly trembling hands:
- Yes. For a preventive strike. You know, my mother-in-law was kind and meek. But I offended her. At first casually, in a hurry... And then more and more often. You see, it’s worth telling an old man once: “Get out!” – and then it becomes familiar and pronounced so easily... Oh, if only I could bring everything back! How ashamed I am now for this, Tanya! Do you know when I felt ashamed? When I heard these words from my own daughter. From Rituli.
She shouted them to me with the same intonation, mine, which I remember so well... You know, Tanya, in order to understand how she felt offended person, you need to take his place. But the well-fed does not understand the hungry. No, he doesn't understand...
– Irina Lvovna, now I’ll give you some medicine. And morsica.
- Wait. I offended my mother-in-law - and I was afraid that you would also offend me. And she became an example for her own daughter. I'm not angry with her. It is not her fault. She had a good teacher. Tanya, evil always comes back. Right now I, a sick and apparently dying old woman, am telling you banal things. Tanya, I learned them only from my own experience.
The mother-in-law fell silent. Tanya took out the pills, took a glass of water, helped the patient get up, and when, having handed over the medicine, she went to the kitchen for a cup of broth, a voice whispered after her:
- Forgive me, daughter.
Tanya felt these quiet words hit her in the back, so that she faltered. She turned around, walked up to the bed, sat down next to her on the floor, took her mother-in-law by the hand and began to cry. Tears flowed, and along with them the poison of resentment, an old, long-standing resentment, came out, and my soul became warm. She cried, and her mother-in-law stroked her head with her hot, dry palm.
Kostya ran into the room. I saw my mother crying - and her lips trembled, her face grimaced, another moment - and a loud roar would be heard.
– What kind of painting is this by Repin “They Didn’t Expect”? What's going on here? – the voice of the husband who returned from work was feignedly angry, but there was also anxiety and fear for his loved ones.
Tanya was still sobbing, and Irina Lvovna answered:
“Yes, I’m about to die here, but they won’t allow my daughter and grandson - they say it’s too early.” Apparently I'll have to get better.
Olga ROZHNEVA
You constantly read articles in the world media in which well-known Western journalists and analysts talk about a preemptive strike by the United States and the West on Russia with the subtext: it will survive, or maybe it won’t, and is it time? As if it were some kind of self-evident possibility. After all, Russia, the Western media shout, is so “aggressive,” so the West seems to have the right to do so.
The Italian Il Giornale writes about the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation: “Being isolated from Russia, except sea routes“Kaliningrad was always seen as a weak link in the new Russian strategy, but it was sufficiently fortified to cause maximum damage in the event of a preemptive strike by NATO.” According to American General Frank Gorenka, “this is an extremely dangerous situation.”
Italian journalists and American generals came to the conclusion that a preventive strike on Kaliningrad would not bring the desired results; it was too well protected, unfortunately? The recent meeting between Nuland and Surkov in Kaliningrad was also interpreted by Western media as a warning from Nuland about an “imminent attack” by NATO on Russia.
Recently, the BBC distinguished itself again: it shot a kind of “documentary”, using video footage of the war in Donbass, the film “The Third World War: at the command post." This is, so to speak, a warning film, with arguments from famous English ex-politicians about what Russia’s “aggression” against Latvia, with the use of a nuclear warship against an English warship, could (or will?) look like. And in Sweden, nuclear strikes by Russian aviation are being simulated during exercises, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg says after him, but without evidence...
Strictly speaking, this is called the preparation of the Western man in the street for a sudden “disarming” NATO attack on Russia, and its justification. Especially considering the insults and defamation of the Russian president by government officials in the United States and Britain.
And at this time, analysts of “aggressive Russia” have taken too much water in their mouths, and are afraid to say a word in their characteristic “aggressive manner.” Let's break this vicious tradition.
On the one hand, we repeat, we see the preparation of not only Western, but also world public opinion for a preventive US nuclear strike on Russia, supposedly “disarming” and therefore almost “humane”. If Russia didn't have atomic weapons, then the US atomic attack on Russia-USSR took place long ago, according to the already declassified American “Dropshot” plan, or an attack on Russia took place according to the Yugoslav scenario, which many Western high-ranking political analysts openly dream about. Nuclear forces Russia is being prevented from realizing the Yugoslav-Russian scenario, but the information aggression of the West has already begun...
I understand this danger, given the increasing propaganda aggression in the Western media against Russia, which is actually preparation for a military attack (this is exactly how Hitler’s Germany acted before its blitzkriegs), perhaps Russia should also think about a preventive humane “disarming” strike on the West, from USA to Europe? Why not, if the West publicly discusses such strategies?
Our "Stratfor" could say in response that there are no coincidences in the Great Game, and the West's propaganda attack on Russia is a harbinger of a sudden and treacherous military attack. Russia is trying to warn the West about the consequences, and this is also why the military operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces is being carried out in Syria - this is a demonstration of Russia’s military capabilities. For example, what could happen in Ukraine if Russia has to carry out a peacekeeping operation there to disarm Bandera’s neo-Nazi formations. To avoid having to use aerospace forces in Ukraine, Russia is conducting demonstration combat exercises in Syria.
By the way, Bandera’s incantations about the imminent collapse of Russia, thanks to which Banderia will flourish, indicate that Bandera’s propagandists consider the imminent attack of the West on Russia to be a done deal. After all, Banderia itself is part of the plan for an attack on Russia, a springboard for this. Some American generals in the summer of 2015 directly said that American missiles and Bandera bayonets would defeat Russia. And the Kyiv Hitlers painted on billboards the entrance of the Ukrovermacht to Moscow.
What they think about this is unclear, since in the case Great War Ukraine will become the main field of this war, and it’s hard to even imagine what it will turn into. While Russia can count on preserving its eastern regions and Siberia. However, what can we say about Galician raguli, when European sages are setting up US bases on their territory.
Therefore, Russia may demand an immediate cessation of propaganda aggression in Western media, and the disavowal of provocative materials that have already been published, such as the war in the Baltics from the BBC. And the denazification of the Bandera regime. If this does not happen, Russia may accept this information war seriously, as preparation for a sudden military attack on it, that war with the West is inevitable...
In a situation of propaganda aggression, the “human factor” may be superimposed on a failure in the computer networks of the Russian Defense Ministry, or some other accident, and the West itself may receive the first “disarming” humane blow. Yes, then Russia will compensate for the damage caused, within reasonable limits and from a position of strength. After all, in the end, the West itself is to blame: with its plans for preventive strikes and propaganda campaign, it provoked a “global humane” strike from Russia, and it also began to consider it possible.
At the same time, most likely, there will be no Russian invasion of either the Baltics, or Georgia, or Europe, or America, which Stratfor and the BBC are broadcasting about. For what? Whoever needs to be reached, we will get it anyway! - President Putin has already answered this question. There is no operational need for this.
In general, Russia has nothing to lose today. Russia-USSR surrendered the Warsaw Pact to the West, surrendered its union republics, so what? Did they leave us alone? The servility of our liberal column to the West speaks of what a Russia “civilized” by the West will be like. In the humane opinion of our liberals, Russia must endure and defend itself, but in such a way as not to harm the West and the progress of its gay values. And why do we need such values and liberal servility?
For some reason, our liberal column is confident that the military and economic power of the United States is forever, that it is a kind of constant, not subject to the influence of time, crises and disasters. We'll see, let's not rush. Let's preserve Russia's sovereignty, and then, lo and behold, the United States will collapse like the USSR. Freedom for the enslaved peoples of America and Europe!
The task of our liberals is to generate pro-Western decadent sentiments in Russia, and to justify the need for Russia to retreat to the West, to lose ground further and further. Stanislav Belkovsky, who talked about Putin’s wealth on the BBC, said honestly on Echo of Moscow, which is usually unusual for him: “Russia needs the West to put the squeeze on it.” And we answer him: the West needs Russia to calibrate it. And our liberal column also really needs this...
A blow to the strategic balance: Putin's preventive response
I think that it was no accident that Vladimir Putin in Valdai spoke about the increased danger of nuclear war, repeated the axiom about Russia’s readiness to take the whole world with it, and discussed the existence of the right to a preventive strike.
On the last question, experts immediately started a discussion about whether the Russian president meant a nuclear preventive strike, and, if so, how this fits with his statement that he would not launch a nuclear strike first.
Let's answer briefly.
Firstly, it fits, since a preventive strike is considered by international law as response to the now inevitable aggression. You, however, need to prove that aggression was inevitable. But it is unlikely that anyone will be interested in evidence after a nuclear war. The one who survives will win, and only a few will survive (if they survive). And these will be individuals and/or communities, not states or international organizations. So what if Russian leadership receives information about the inevitability of a massive nuclear strike on Russia in the coming hours, it has the right (and even obliged) launch a preemptive nuclear strike, and this will not be the first use of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, this is not important at all, since even if a preventive strike is carried out with conventional high-precision weapons, it will be directed against positional areas in which carriers of nuclear weapons threatening Russia and missile defense systems. From the point of view of the military doctrines of both the USSR and Russia, a massive attack on strategic nuclear facilities by non-nuclear forces was equated to the beginning of a nuclear war and gave the right to a nuclear response. Americans approach this issue in exactly the same way.
So, in principle, it makes no sense to discuss whether I meant Vladimir Putin preventive or exclusively retaliatory nuclear or non-nuclear strike by Russia. He clearly focused on the sharply increased danger of nuclear confrontation. And this is the main point. Because “who started it first” will not matter, and no one will know about it.
So the question that interests us should be as follows: “Why did the Russian president talk about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe right now, when we are not experiencing the deepest aggravation of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, and on the Korean peninsula Seoul and Pyongyang are demonstrating an unprecedented level of friendliness, seriously discussing denuclearization of the peninsula as part of the development of inter-Korean dialogue and economic cooperation between North and South?”
I'm sure that it was a preemptive response to the US decision announced a day later to withdraw from the INF Treaty (medium- and short-range missiles).
Why did this decision cause such a strong reaction? After all, the INF Treaty, signed in Washington Gorbachev And Reagan December 8, 1987, came into force in June 1988, and was already implemented by June 1991. That is, all the complexes that were subject to the ban were destroyed by both Russia and the United States. Moreover, the development of military equipment over the past 30 years allows tasks that were solved by complexes destroyed under the Treaty to be assigned to other systems that, while not formally violating the Treaty, are even more effective.
The Pioneer missile system is on display at the Missile Forces Museum in the city of Znamensk
The treaty prohibits the production and deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers. But today Russia has in its arsenal the complexes “ Scanner"(up to 500 km), cruise missiles deployed" Caliber» air and sea-based (do not fall under the restrictions of the Treaty, which the Americans themselves once insisted on). The declared range of these missiles against ground targets can reach 1,500 kilometers. At the same time, some sources talk about 2000-2500 kilometers. Range of the complex " Dagger"(including the range of the carrier) placed on the Tu-22M3 reaches 3000 kilometers. But this, if we keep in mind the combat radius of the aircraft at supersonic speed, in mixed mode the combat radius of the aircraft increases from 1500 to 2500 kilometers, respectively, the range of the complex together with the missile can reach 4000 thousand kilometers.
That is, without formally violating the treaty, Russia is able, with the help of the latest developments, to solve problems that in the last century were only accessible to medium-range missiles. Moreover, the latest developments, which should enter the troops in the next 10-12 years, generally have arbitrary range, that is, for them in principle there are no inaccessible targets on planet Earth.
Let me also remind you that Russia at one time announced the possibility of its withdrawal from the INF Treaty in response to the Americans’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I think that the exit was not realized because it turned out to be more effective to develop and put into service new high-precision weapons, which make it possible not to violate the Treaty and at the same time not be particularly bound by it from a strategic point of view.
In thirty years, Russia has simply turned the situation around. At the conclusion of the INF Treaty, the United States had an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear precision weapons capable of hitting then-Soviet (and later Russian) strategic delivery vehicles as part of the first disarming massive non-nuclear strike. The USSR opposed these classes of American missiles (including “ Tomahawks» air and sea-based) its medium-range missiles, in the production of which it had a technological advantage. The United States removed sea- and air-launched cruise missiles from the scope of the Treaty (promising that they would be in service exclusively with non-nuclear weapons), but at the same time completely deprived the USSR/Russia of an entire class of strategic weapons in exchange for the elimination of similar INF missiles, which were are not important to them.
That is, at that moment the United States could resolve strategic issues without medium-range missiles, but Russia could not, and therefore It was beneficial for Washington to destroy these missiles. Now, to the great chagrin of the Americans, it has turned out that Russia has seriously surpassed them in terms of high-precision weapons (including cruise and ballistic missiles), and will increase this superiority in the near future. Moreover, Moscow can do this, formally without breaking INF Treaty.
Thus, Washington needed the restoration of the medium-range missile class solely to ensure that its technological lag behind Moscow did not turn into a factor of its strategic helplessness. You and I understand that the T-90 tank can destroy the T-34 tank without even coming within range of the aimed fire of its gun (not to mention effective hits). Same with rockets. It is not just the missile that is important, but its tactical and technical data.
But just as an outdated tank can destroy its ultra-modern brother if it gets close enough to it to effectively destroy it, the shortcomings of missile weapons can be compensated by the proximity of their placement.
This is where the danger lies. If the United States has not yet lost the production technology of those medium-range missiles that were in service in the 80s of the last century, then they can relatively quickly produce hundreds of the same “ Pershingov-2" The next question is: where will they be located? From US territory they will not reach Russia. There are three options: Europe, Japan and South Korea . It is not a fact that Seoul will agree to participate in a new round of the arms race, given its honeymoon with Pyongyang and the frank fears of being exposed by the United States to a retaliatory strike from North Korean or Chinese missiles. Yes, and shoot from the Korean Peninsula and Japanese Islands it is possible only in the Far East, where, frankly speaking, there are few targets for these missiles and they are well covered.
American Pershing II medium-range missiles
Last time, the main positioning areas of medium-range missiles were located by the United States in Western Europe(V Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark). Then the Pershing flight time to Smolensk was 6 minutes, to Moscow - up to 10 minutes. This dramatically reduced the time to make a decision in crisis situation and increased the likelihood of accidental conflict. That is why the Soviet leadership then, like the Russian leadership now, warned that the United States had begun dangerous game, fraught with breakdown into an uncontrollable conflict that could instantly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war.
Now it is far from certain that the Americans will be able to place missiles in the same countries as in the last century. So far only Great Britain clearly supported the United States, declaring that it no longer considered itself bound by the INF Treaty. Germany and Italy will clearly not be happy if they receive this kind of proposal. Besides Trump started an economic war against the EU, directed precisely against Old Europe.
But there is New Europe. Who can guarantee that Poland, Baltics and joined them Ukraine will they think for a long time when they receive an offer from the United States to deploy Pershings (or something similar) on their territory? But then the flight time of the missiles to Moscow will be no more than 3-4 minutes, and to St. Petersburg even a minute and a half.
This is a situation in which any accident can provoke a preemptive strike. Moreover, in a situation where it is launched at the launching positions of American nuclear missiles, without further ado it is possible to immediately launch intercontinental missiles at Washington. All the same, the breakdown of the conflict into a full-scale nuclear one will be a matter of a few minutes, in best case scenario several hours.
This is what Putin spoke about in Valdai, when he promised the aggressors that we would go to heaven, and they would simply die.
The system of international treaties designed to ensure nuclear stability was based on the treaties on the MTCR (non-proliferation of missile technology), NPT (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), ABM (missile defense), SALT-1 and SALT-2 (on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons), START- 1, START-2, SNP, START-3 and INF Treaty.
The MTCR and NPT treaties have practically become worthless pieces of paper. Not caring about them, they acquired nuclear weapons India and Pakistan. Informally, it is a nuclear power and Israel, whose capabilities are estimated at 100-200 tactical nuclear warheads, but the “civilized world” pretends that it is not aware of the violation of the treaty by a permanently warring country. Well, after the DPRK was not only able to implement its nuclear program, but also with the help received from Ukraine create technologies all classes of missiles, including intercontinental ones, there is no need to talk about the effectiveness of the MTCR and NPT treaties. What I managed Kim Chen Eun, Anyone whose international weight is even slightly larger than that of Swaziland or Lesotho can.
As is known, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
The SALT I Treaty limited strategic arsenals to the levels reached by the end of 1972 (tens of thousands of delivery vehicles). The SALT II Treaty did not enter into force because the US Senate blocked its ratification due to the introduction Soviet troops to Afghanistan. The START-1 and START treaties are no longer relevant, since they were replaced by the START-3 Treaty, which slightly reduced the total number of deployed launch vehicles compared to the START. The START-2 Treaty (which prohibited equipping missiles with multiple independently targetable warheads) was signed in 1993, ratified by the State Duma in 2000, and already in 2002 Russia withdrew from it in connection with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Thus, today, after the announced withdrawal of the United States from the IMF, from the entire system of international treaties that regulated the system of strategic potentials, Only the START-3 Treaty is actually in force, but it means little in the unfolding arms race.
Perhaps the United States wants to repeat the successful blackmail attempt of the 80s of the twentieth century, which forced concessions to the USSR and ultimately contributed to its eventual collapse. But the situation is radically different. Firstly, Russia has relevant experience and knows that “gentlemen” cannot be trusted at their word, and the agreements they sign, too. Secondly, if Russia is still moving along an upward trajectory both in politics and in the economy, then in the United States, at best, we can talk about stagnation. However, Trump prefers to talk about the crisis that he wants to overcome and “make America great again.” Thirdly, in terms of military technology, in the last century the USSR was catching up, but now the USA is catching up. Fourthly, stories with 5th generation fighters, the latest destroyers and littoral ships show the blatant inefficiency of the US military-industrial complex when enormous amounts of money are spent, but there is no result. Fifthly, in the last century, all world centers of power (USA, EU, China, Japan) were against the USSR, which was forced to stretch its meager military, political, financial, economic and diplomatic resources to confront everyone. Now even Japan does not completely unconditionally support the United States. In Europe they were left with Great Britain, torn by internal contradictions, and some poor Young Europeans. They are in a tougher confrontation with China than with us, and now they are also talking about introducing sanctions against India.
In general, if we take the US actions as an attempt at blackmail, then it is doomed to failure. But this does not negate the military danger of such games. If you fry kebabs on a barrel of gunpowder, sooner or later it will explode. So new system International treaties aimed at limiting, reducing, and ideally eliminating nuclear arsenals will have to be developed. But first, it is necessary for the United States to understand its place in the new world and come to terms with it.
